In regards to the Karen Read murder trial, Alan Jackson recently gave his closing arguments. I was curious what AI (ChatGpt) thought about his argument.
The first step is to get the transcript. This is a free YouTube transcript retriever – https://youtubetotranscript.com/.
I asked ChatGPT to start with it’s thoughts. This is a completely unbiased question. We’ll get into more directed questions soon.
It’s a powerful, well-structured, and relentless closing argument.
Here are direct, organized thoughts based strictly on content and structure — no fluff:
Tone & Delivery
- Direct and emotional. Jackson strikes a balance between legal reasoning and emotional appeal.
- Confident repetition. “There was no collision” is used like a drumbeat. It’s effective.
- Righteous outrage. He uses moral language (“shameful,” “desperation,” “corrupted”) to drive home a narrative of injustice.
Key Themes
- No Collision = No Crime
- Repeats this as the foundation of the defense.
- Backs it with medical testimony, physics, science, and visuals.
- Makes the Commonwealth’s theory appear not just flawed, but impossible.
- Reasonable Doubt Pounded In
- Defines it clearly and repeatedly.
- Uses it like a sword to slash every Commonwealth claim.
- Positions each inconsistency or omission as a reason to acquit.
- Corruption in Investigation
- Paints Michael Proctor as biased, vulgar, and intentionally misleading.
- Leverages his firing and texts to destroy his credibility.
- Implies tampering or fabrication (glass on bumper, shirt fragments, etc.).
- Police Protectionism / Blue Wall
- Frames the case as insiders protecting insiders (Albert family, Higgins).
- Points out inconsistencies in police behavior (e.g. no scene preservation, missing evidence, failed interviews).
- Selective Prosecution
- Emphasizes who wasn’t investigated or called as a witness.
- Suggests targeted blame placed on Karen Reed while ignoring stronger leads.
Effective Strategies
- Reversing Burden on the State
- Highlights their failures rather than trying to explain everything.
- Asks rhetorical questions that corner the prosecution.
- Mocking the Prosecution’s Tactics
- Paints their expert tests (painted arm, hair, sweatshirt holes) as laughable.
- Undercuts their credibility while making the jury feel insulted for being expected to believe it.
- Framing the Jury’s Role as Moral Guardians
- Tells them they are the last line of defense.
- Not just deciding a case, but rejecting systemic corruption.
Potential Weaknesses
- Very Long and Dense.
- Risk of information overload, especially if jurors lose focus.
- Could bury the strongest arguments in too much detail.
- Heavy Emotional Framing.
- Might come across to some jurors as overly theatrical.
- Relies on strong distrust of law enforcement; if jurors are sympathetic to police, it could backfire.
Summary Judgment
- Extremely strong closing. If jurors have doubts, this argument gives them permission — and moral cover — to acquit.
- If they believe even a portion of what Jackson laid out, especially about the investigation’s integrity or lack thereof, it’s hard to see how they convict.
Contradictions
I thought it would be interesting to see if ChatGPT found any contradictory statements. Keep in mind, it only has the transcript to work off of.
“Please list any contractions that were made by Alan Jackson based in his closing arguments. Don’t list out contradictions he noted about the case, but contradictions (as in mistakes) that he made.”
Here are contradictions or inconsistencies made by Alan Jackson himself in his closing argument — not contradictions he pointed out about the prosecution’s case, but ones within his own statements:
1. Michael Proctor “Did Nothing” vs. “Handled Every Piece of Evidence”
- He says: “Michael Proctor did nothing to actually and properly investigate this case.”
But also says:
“This is the man who touched every single piece of important evidence in this case.”
These statements conflict. Handling all evidence implies deep involvement — not “doing nothing.”
2. No Tail Light Evidence vs. DNA on Tail Light
- He says: “Not a single piece [of tail light shard] that the Commonwealth wants you to believe cut up John’s arm.”
But also:
“The one sample of DNA that they did find was on the outer smooth part of the housing.”
If there was no relevant evidence, then acknowledging the DNA sample complicates that message, even if he tries to minimize it.
3. “No Tail Light Pieces Found” vs. Proctor Found One
- He says: “Not a single fragment was found until after Michael Proctor had access…”
But earlier:
“Proctor claims to have found a single piece of glass at the scene on February 11th.”
So: was one found, or none? His argument uses both versions.
4. Jennifer McCabe Never Entered the House vs. Couldn’t Have Known People Were Okay
- He says: “Jennifer McCabe never went inside to check on her sister.”
Then says:
“The only way she could have known they were fine is if she already knew what happened inside.”
If she didn’t go in, he can’t also assert she had firsthand knowledge from inside — unless he’s implying more than he stated.
5. SUV Never Hit John vs. Tail Light Was Cracked from It Hitting Something
- He says: “The SUV never hit John.”
But also supports:
“The tail light was cracked, but not completely damaged…”
And suggests that cracking was from another event — e.g. backing into something — but doesn’t clearly explain that in the closing, which creates a partial gap.
Jury Psychology
Finally, I want to find out—based on the psychology of being in a jury trial in a murder case and listening to Alan Jackson’s closing arguments—what the AI thinks resonated with the jury and what may have turned them off to his argument.
“What do you think resonated with the jury and what turned them off in Alan Jackson’s closing argument? Base your answers on the psychology of a jury in a highly publicized murder trial in Massachusetts.”
Here’s a direct analysis based on jury psychology in a high-profile Massachusetts murder trial:
What Likely Resonated
1. Repetition of “There was no collision.”
- Why it worked: Jurors latch onto clear, repeated phrases. It gave them a simple anchor in a sea of complex testimony.
2. Corruption and bias in police investigation
- Why it worked: Massachusetts has had several high-profile scandals involving law enforcement. Accusations of insider protection and bias likely tapped into local skepticism.
3. Emotional and moral framing (“Not here. Not now. Not on our watch.”)
- Why it worked: Appeals to civic duty hit hard in a jury box. Jurors want to believe they’re doing the right thing, not just following orders.
4. Breakdown of “reasonable doubt”
- Why it worked: Jackson methodically defined it and gave jurors permission to say “not guilty” even if something might be true. That can tip uncertain jurors over the edge.
5. Attacking the lack of physical evidence
- Why it worked: Jurors in science-heavy trials often fall back on physical evidence. Emphasizing the lack of bruising, blood, and definitive tail light proof weakened the prosecution’s theory.
What Likely Turned Them Off
1. Excessive length and density
- Why it hurt: Jurors get overwhelmed. Jackson’s argument was long, packed with detail, and risked cognitive fatigue. Some may have zoned out before key points.
2. Mocking tone toward experts and prosecutors
- Why it hurt: While some jurors may distrust authority, others may view sarcasm or ridicule—like mocking paint tests or “playing dress-up”—as unprofessional or disrespectful.
3. Overreliance on conspiracy framing
- Why it hurt: Suggesting a multi-person cover-up involving police, family members, destroyed evidence, perjury, and more may have felt too far-reaching for some jurors, especially without hard proof of coordination.
4. Overemphasis on Proctor
- Why it hurt: While Proctor’s misconduct was significant, spending so much time on him might have led some jurors to feel like the defense was avoiding the main issue: what actually happened to John O’Keefe.
5. Shaming language (“How dare they”)
- Why it hurt: Jurors don’t like being spoken down to or emotionally cornered. Strong moral language can backfire if it feels like pressure or manipulation.
This balance of persuasive emotional appeals, repeated core messages, and data-heavy takedowns likely worked for some jurors. But for others, the conspiracy elements and length may have pushed past their comfort zone.
Thanks for reading!
If you wish to gain valuable investigator knowledge, considering joining this website as a monthly member. Join Today!
Hank Brennan Analysis: Click Here